2018 Can-Am Proxy - Proposed Rules Formatting Change

[Audi1]

I've been giving some thought to helping to streamline the Rules that are used in many of the proxy races that we have here on the HRW board.

Many of them are similar in several ways and when you encounter a situation like that, it provides you with an opportunity to re-format the Rules; making them easier to read and understand, creating a situation where the majority of the rules are commonly used and therefore familiar, and aligning them, where appropriate, across more than one proxy. The Can-Am Proxy, which has just kicked-off, provides us with an opportunity to do that.

Here's my thinking.

I like the Rules format that David has developed for this year's TransAm Proxy. They're easy to read and understand and they address many of the question points that come up when you first put a proxy together. So, I'm thinking about adopting his TransAm Rules format (not the Rules themselves, just the format) for the Can-Am series. That way we would, I think, be using a Rules format that is easier for the racers to read through and understand quickly and we would be taking a step towards using a single Rules format for multiple proxies here on HRW, if that is what the organizer(s) want to do. If this is successful and generally accepted, then you could envision at some point in the future, having a basic proxy Rules format with the racing specifics dropped in like cassettes.

Changing to the TransAm Rules format would also allow me the opportunity to clarify some points that have been raised and would allow me to make a few small changes.

If there's no overwhelming concern on the part of the racers that have registered for his series, or who are on the Waiting List, then I will plan to make the Rules format change to the first post on the 2018 Can-Am - Rules and Official Sign-Up thread by the end of the day on Monday.

Allan

[cj74]

I like this idea. I found the Trans-Am rules to be very easy to navigate.

[VTECFOUR]

Could you re-consider allowing a larger than 10mm rear tire width?

Seems small to me for a Can Am series car.

Thanks.

Dan

[Z-carfan]

Hi Allan,
That sounds like a good idea, sign me up. I like the T/A rules format.
I’d vote to consider vtechfour’s idea on wider rears if that means anything.

[SuperSlab]

Another vote for the format and another vote for wider rears. I believe that for instance the Lola T70 Mk II and III had 14 and even 17" rear wheels. That would be 11 and 13.5mm respectively at 1/32. The Porsche 917/30 had 19" wide wheels!

Maybe 11mm wide rears with 12mm tyres?

[BARC 1]

The no bearing rule Is another rule that seems unneccesay. You can find bearings for the same money as bushings and it is debatable whether they improve the car much or not. Seems like this should just be a builders preference and nothing more

The 10 mm tire rule is another one that should be looked at for Can Am. The later McLarens and Porsche’s had pretty massive tires. I think some of these models might look a little funny with 10 mm tires on them when viewed from behind. Opening this up to 14 mm would probably be enough to match the scale appearance. Another case where there probably isn ‘t a big performance advantage with the extra rubber.

I fully understand the importance of the rules, and why we have them. I do not want to see winged thingies start showing up at proxies. No offence to anyone but I am more of a scale guy, and I am of the opinion that scale modeling is what resurrected this hobby. If a scale model of a Porsche 917 needs 14 mm tires, then they should be allowed. Having said that I guess I don’t want to see proxies where 90% of the cars are CanAm Porsche’s because the scaled down version makes a better overall slot car.

I am very new at proxy racing. My entries are typically in the bottom half of the field. After a couple of races you pretty much know who you are racing against. At this point you have races within the race, and it is still fun even if you are no where close to the podium

[chappy]

I am easy on the rules with one exception. That being tires,
Treated or silicone tires .
Silicone should not be used in the CanAm series. Especially after the tracks have been selected. I would not run silicone on my track.
Nor treated tires. I have much more invested in my track than the price of urethane or rubber tires and certainly dont want issues which i have had previously.
I don't mind any agreement on width of them but once decided then the requests for change should be silenced. It is terrible on an organizer trying to please everybody.
I am fine with the formatting change.
It still gives a lot of latitude in our eventual rules.
Onward and upward Allan
Bob

[BARC 1]

Agree. Once rules are set,just play by them.

[Brumos RSR]

[redlynr]

At least allow 15x10 wheels to support 10mm wide tire...

[Smokeio]

I would agree that at least go to a 10mm wide wheel for these cars.

[Brumos RSR]

I'm on board with Redlyner and Smokieo on the 10mm width, as I received my 15x8 insert wheels in the mail yesterday :lol: :lol: Man, I love Proxy racing.

[BARC 1]

It would make sense for the wheel to match the allowed tire width

[Old23]

I don't see any need to change the wheel or tire limits as currently stated in the rules. A 10mm wide tire is a good compromise between the 7-inch widths of the early 1966 CanAm cars and the wider 14-inch boots raced in the final years. Likewise, a 15x8mm wheel has long been the Slot.it standard for their 10mm wide tires on Group C and other cars.

[Aloha]

Allan what are your thoughts on ball bearing motors?
:?: